This copy is for your personal non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies of Toronto Star content for distribution to colleagues, clients or customers, or inquire about permissions/licensing, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com

Durham regional police are trying to find out who leaked information to the Toronto Star about internal misconduct, with the chief saying it represents a breach of confidentiality that “simply can’t be tolerated.”

The force and the officers’ union said in separate notes to staff and members recently that it is looking into the “clear” breach after the newspaper reported details of misconduct involving two officers in a one-car accident before Christmas.

“It is equally disturbing that beyond the original information breach, it is clear that the source(s) inside our organization copied and released private, internal photographs of two police officers,” Chief Mike Ewles said in a note to staff.

“This is a concern on many levels, including officer safety, and is a clear breach of our directives. This simply can’t be tolerated.”

The Durham Regional Police Association also said the passing along of the information belonging to the force is a clear breach of confidentiality.

Article Continued Below

“The association has been made aware that this particular occurrence is being investigated,’ association president Randy Henning added in his note.

Durham police spokesman Dave Selby said he wouldn’t describe the force’s response to the leak as an investigation but it is “trying to find out what happened.”

“Any time internal and private information about personnel or operational matters makes its way into the public’s hands, it is a concern for any organization,” he said. “We pride ourselves in being an open and transparent organization that holds its employees accountable for their actions, but we certainly won’t discuss internal discipline matters with the Toronto Star.”

The code of conduct in the Police Services Act prohibits an officer from communicating any matter relating to the force to the media without proper authority. Furthermore, an officer can’t show any record that belongs to the force.

But Toronto lawyer Clayton Ruby, a strong advocate of freedom of the press, said the Durham chief wants to prevent any disclosure unless it involves criminal charges.

“That’s outrageous,” Ruby said. “It’s not in the public interest.”

Ruby added the police misconduct in the Durham case underlines a “complete double standard” in how the force treats its staff in a vehicle accident compared to the handling of other drivers, and the public should know about it.

Regarding Ewles’ statement that publication of the officers’ pictures represents a safety risk, Ruby said the chief’s claim they would be in danger is “dubious.”

The force’s search for the sources follows a Dec. 14 incident after it rewarded four officers from its Whitby detachment for unidentified “outstanding work.” It gave them paid time off and free hockey tickets at the “end of their shift” to see an Oshawa Generals junior game. The officers were not on duty while at the game, the force noted.

After the game, police said, the officers headed to a nearby pub. One officer left later in his car, lost control and landed in a ditch. He called an on-duty officer to pick him up at a location near the accident, according to police. That officer drove him to downtown Oshawa.

Durham police would not say whether the on-duty officer or anyone else in the force conducted a blood-alcohol breathalyzer test on the off-duty officer in the accident.

Two sources familiar with the incident said the on-duty officer was working on a local RIDE check. Police would not confirm that information.

Police said they received other calls about the crash, and a sergeant investigated. That resulted in charges against off-duty officer Richard Robinson for careless driving and leaving the scene of an accident.

The force’s professional standards unit also investigated and charged him with discreditable conduct and he received a temporary demotion and loss of pay. An internal police report said he fled the scene and “purposely discarded police-issue equipment in the garbage.” Police would not identify the equipment.

Meanwhile, police docked on-duty officer Tim Wray three days pay for displaying “wilful blindness” in dealing with the off-duty officer. Police would not disclose any other details about what the “blindness” entailed or the officer’s name.

In his internal note to force members, Ewles said the force is “a very large company” where a small percentage of employees will occasionally make a mistake or poor decisions.

“We will continue to hold everyone accountable for their actions to maintain the trust and support of the public we serve,” he said. “We will continue to employ the provisions of the Police Services Act fairly and promptly in all cases of alleged wrongdoing.

“In this case, the officers have taken responsibility for their action and are looking to put the matter behind them.”

Lawyer Julian Falconer, an outspoken police critic, said the Durham force has legitimate concerns about the release of officer pictures or information from a police computer without authority.

But Falconer, who has clashed with Ewles in the past, said much, if not all, of the information about the case should be publicly available under the police discipline process.

“The disclosure appears to be accomplished under the radar and one wonders, if the process had been transparent from the outset, whether there would be anything meaningful to leak.”

Falconer also questioned whether the Durham force adequately informs the public of hearings and details of charges involving officers.

Toronto lawyer James Morton said he thinks the public should be entitled to know about details of breaches by officers. It would instill more public confidence in a force’s fairness and impartiality, he said.

Morton also noted the case suggests the need of more protection for police whistleblowers.

More from the Toronto Star & Partners

LOADING

Copyright owned or licensed by Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or distribution of this content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited and/or its licensors. To order copies of Toronto Star articles, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com